[Suntzu]

Huh? So the immigrant gets to decide if he/she is assimilated into a society and not the society he is assimilating into? That makes sense.

[Pants-of-dog]

Huh? So the immigrant gets to decide if he/she is assimilated into a society and not the society he is assimilating into? That makes sense.

Who said that? You seem to be making up stuff.

[QatzelOk]

That has nothing to do with cultural assimilation. A person could be entirely assimilated and still not be seen as Swiss because of a vote, which could actually derail the whole assimilation process.

If the local population votes against you receiving your citizenship, it's difficult to see how you could have possibly assimilated to this same group. Unless, of course, you're defining "assimilate" the English-Canadian way as in "buys normal products for a person living in his postal code."

[Suntzu]

Democracy can be brutal.

[Pants-of-dog]

Democracy can be brutal.

You never replied to my comment about how voting can derail assimilation, nor have you supported your weird idea that the immigrant is the only one who gets to decide.

Can we assume that you have no argument?

[Suntzu]

In Switzerland the local citizens get to decide whether or not Swiss citizenship is granted based on assimilation. Do I need to use smaller words?

[Joka]

You never replied to my comment about how voting can derail assimilation, nor have you supported your weird idea that the immigrant is the only one who gets to decide.

Can we assume that you have no argument?

Are you making an argument against democracy?

[mikema63]

He's making an argument against direct democracy in a very specific circumstance. It would be immensely disenginous to suggest he is against democracy writ large.

[Political Interest]

Citizenship has very little to do with assimilation. A person can have citizenship in a country and not be at all assimilated. By contrast they can also have been resident thirty five years, be fully assimilated but not have ever applied for citizenship for various reasons.

[Joka]

He's making an argument against direct democracy in a very specific circumstance. It would be immensely disenginous to suggest he is against democracy writ large.

Direct democracy for me is the only true authentic form of democracy in contrast to representative democracy which is corruptible.

You can't force anybody to do or be anything very well which includes multiculturalism, you can't force multiculturalism onto people. Forcing things onto people no matter what is being enforced always has negative ramifications.

[mikema63]

Oh you have a special dictionary with your own definitions. That will make it easy to communicate about politics.

All social relations force conditions on someone else. Human beings evolved to be Tangled in social webs and relationships that controls the behavior of individual participants for the long term survival of the group. What form that control takes can vary, the forms of relationships change, but there is no opting out.

[Joka]

Oh you have a special dictionary with your own definitions. That will make it easy to communicate about politics.

All social relations force conditions on someone else. Human beings evolved to be Tangled in social webs and relationships that controls the behavior of individual participants for the long term survival of the group. What form that control takes can vary, the forms of relationships change, but there is no opting out.

That is a defeatist position that rejects the ability for change. There is always a way to opt out. You prescribe values or egoisms to nature and evolution that neither has. Both are illusions or phantasms created by the mind.

[mikema63]

That is a defeatist position that rejects the ability for change.

Defeatist on what? I haven't declared any war on society. I also don't reject the ability to change. We do change as a society and as individuals but we do not change from within ourselves. Our beliefs are changed by the interactions between us and society. Put someone who believes gays are evil and put him in a city where everyone thinks being gay is fine and he will either violently reject the society he finds himself in or his beliefs will change. Societies change in response to changing conditions to better deal with it's conditions.

There is always a way to opt out.

All social interactions change your beliefs and controls your behavior whether you want to admit it or not. Our biology is designed to make you trust your tribe and distrust others, to accept the values of your tribe, and to essentially submit your will to the group you identify with. You can identify with your anarchist friends, but even then the interactions you have with them effects your values, beliefs, and desires. You cannot opt out of all social interaction because human beings literally go insane and die without social interaction. We need it to survive because it's written into our DNA and brains. We didn't create society because we evolved large brains, we evolved large brains in response to social group interactions. We are born with our brains only partly developed, it undergoes massive changes until your twenties and all that rewiring is done in response to the social conext we grow up in. The values, beliefs, prejudices, systems of thought, and everything else we grow to be is driven by those social interactions forcing themselves onto our brains. That never stops, your brain is constantly reorganizing itself in response to your social interactions. Without your consent.

Language itself is nothing more than a system by which two minds interact and change each other. We think in language, our minds are changed by it. We have group think not as some accident of people innability to think critically but because human beings think in groups. We don't come up with complex beliefs or solutions all by ourselves, they are created by the interactions of people in society. You didn't come up with the idea that direct democracy was the only kind of democracy all on your own, the biases and beliefs that led you to that conclusion were imprinted onto you by your social groups and interactions with society.

Language, literature, media, education, etc. etc. is what connects you to the grand group think hive mind that is the society you live in.

You prescribe values or egoisms to nature and evolution that neither has.

I ascribe no values to evolution. It wants nothing, it isn't a thing capable of wanting. It is merely the process by which organisms change to maximize their reproduction and survival. Not because they want that, or nature wants that, but simply because the ones that don't survive as well die out. Humans adapted to this force over millions of years by forming an additional layer of ability to adapt faster than other animals. Our societies are just ways we adapt to the environment, and society is the collective thought patterns and subornation of will that is stamped onto our minds from birth to death.

Both are illusions or phantasms created by the mind.

They are useful illusions created by our collective minds operating in society that help us understand and operate in the world and society.

[Pants-of-dog]

In Switzerland the local citizens get to decide whether or not Swiss citizenship is granted based on assimilation. .....

Yes, and I replied to that.

---------------

Are you making an argument against democracy?

No, and it would not affect my argument at all if I was.

[ThirdTerm]

The Swiss case is forced integration. Some Muslims girls could not obtain Swiss citizenship after refusing to swim with boys. If South African students refuse to study with non-white pupils, they should face the same penalty from the local council. We should not tolerate intolerance in a democracy regardless of their cultural backgrounds. Muslim culture is segregationist in line with South African culture.

The girls, ages 12 and 14, who live in the northern city of Basel, had applied for Swiss citizenship several months ago, but their request was denied, Swiss media reported Tuesday.

The girls, whose names were not disclosed, said their religion prevents them from participating in compulsory swimming lessons with males in the pool at the same time. Their naturalization application was rejected because the sisters did not comply with the school curriculum, Basel authorities said.

“Whoever doesn’t fulfill these conditions violates the law and therefore cannot be naturalized,” Stefan Wehrle, president of the naturalization committee, told TV station SRF on Tuesday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /86469658/

[Political Interest]

The Swiss cannot force migrants to adopt their culture. I am of the belief that if a people choose to admit outsiders into their land, they must be hospitable to them.

At the same time the Swiss have every right to refuse immigration. It is an absolute choice of every nation.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

There is multiculturalism that happens naturally and mutually concerning cultural assimilation. That particular kind is peaceful and harmonious. Then there is multiculturalism by force that revolves around state intervention. That kind is violent and revolves around coercion. Most of the multiculturalism of the west right now concerns primarily with the later.

I agree that multiculturalism can happen voluntarily, but it is usually temporary (although it can exist for a long time). Unless there is a conscious effort by the state, a continuous influx of newcomers or geographical separation, eventually cultures merge, leaving varying degrees of themselves behind in the new culture. The majority will tend to come out on top when it comes to enforcing cultural norms.

Our western multicultural societies / those with a high rate of immigration actually require a substantial amount of assimilation with respect to those values that make peaceful multiculturalism work. For instance, immigrants who come from highly tribal or sectarian societies must lose the tribalism and/or sectarianism. If we take into account potential demographic changes that may lead to the current majority becoming a minority, the current consensus that posits that there is an oppressive majority and oppressed minorities and the accompanying attitudes and identities would have to change dramatically too. As far as I can see, there is very little appreciation today in the mainstream about these issues and the massive potential problems that await us if these changes don't materialise.

[Donna]

Our western multicultural societies / those with a high rate of immigration actually require a substantial amount of assimilation with respect to those values that make peaceful multiculturalism work. For instance, immigrants who come from highly tribal or sectarian societies must lose the tribalism and/or sectarianism.

The irony of course is that the West will have to block low performing immigrants (i.e. those from tribal or sectarian societies) if they wish to preserve their multicultural institutions. I'm not against this per se (it works well for Canada or Australia, for example, where the immigration policy is meritocratic), but it does contradict the anti-racist dogma of multiculturalism.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The irony of course is that the West will have to block low performing immigrants (i.e. those from tribal or sectarian societies) if they wish to preserve their multicultural institutions. I'm not against this per se (it works well for Canada or Australia, for example, where the immigration policy is meritocratic), but it does contradict the anti-racist dogma of multiculturalism.

I agree that meritocratic selection seems to work better than no selection, so far at least. I can't speak for Canada or Australia, but here in NZ I'm hearing an increasing grumble by the native population about the mass migration programme of the last 25 years, not least because there actually is no NZ-specific evidence that mass migration has been a benefit for native Kiwis. The immigration proponents usually have nothing more to offer than platitudes and statements of faith.

I'm a recent immigrant myself and the immigration advocates tell me that I'm a boon to New Zealand by virtue of not being like Kiwis. My perspective, outlook and the way I'm doing things apparently improve NZ society and especially its economy. It is frankly ridiculous and I couldn't possibly be so vain to believe that I'm better than Kiwis just because I haven't been born and raised here. I strongly suspect I'm no better than an average Kiwi with respect to my contribution to society and the economy and hopefully I'm not worse.

The other aspect of the grumbling has to do with cultural cohesion and national identity and while still quite subdued I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes more assertive in the future, especially since our immigration advocates are now beginning to make a (baseless) case for low skilled migration and "open arms" aka open borders. There is also now a push for reversing the burden of proof, so that opponents to immigration would have to show that it is detrimental rather than the advocates showing that it is beneficial. If this push continues, I suspect that not even the tolerant Kiwis are going to stand by without putting up a fight.

[Donna]

The other aspect of the grumbling has to do with cultural cohesion and national identity and while still quite subdued I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes more assertive in the future, especially since our immigration advocates are now beginning to make a (baseless) case for low skilled migration and "open arms" aka open borders. There is also now a push for reversing the burden of proof, so that opponents to immigration would have to show that it is detrimental rather than the advocates showing that it is beneficial. If this push continues, I suspect that not even the tolerant Kiwis are going to stand by without putting up a fight.

Yes, I would say the meritocratic consensus is under threat today, primarily by interests that want to change the demographic makeup of these countries. It is happening in Canada as well, where the Eastern establishment is increasingly leaning on immigration from Africa to carry itself politically.